I've been avoiding this post for a while, because honestly, I can really only say why he lost me. I can point out that everyone seemed to want Anyone But Mitt, but then everyone in the republican primaries voted for Mitt. I didn't understand it. The few republicans I know who voted for Romney in the primaries all said the same thing, "yeah, he's not my favorite, but he seems the most electable." You see how well that worked out.
The biggest reason I can think of that Mitt Romney lost the election, was that the republicans nominated Mitt Romney. Republicans ran the guy who lost to the guy who already lost to Obama. And yes, I know Ron Paul also lost to McCain, but at least you could define a difference between them. What exactly was the difference between McCain and Romney?
For that matter, what's been the differences between the Bush's, Dole, McCain, or Romney? The only difference was Bush 43's original candidacy of peace. And even then, he lost the popular vote.
Romney lost because republicans don't ask who is best, they ask who's next.
Oh, and because he's kind of a pussy. I don't mean that as an attack on his manhood. Ann seems happy. I'm saying when he failed to show even an ounce of spine or righteous indignation and just played the media's game, he can't have won many votes. If he would have looked at Crowley when she lied about what Obama said after Benghazi and simply said, "Are you willing to stake your reputation as a journalist on that? Because when the folks watching this right now at home jump onto google, you're going to have a lot of explaining to do."
The republicans failed to harness the anger that the government has been creating among the people. Instead of riding a wave of populist anger against big government, bailouts, and this crony capitalist system, they tried to seem reasonable and calm. When Obama called Romney out for "not having a plan," Romney's first line should have been, "Let's talk about your plan, Mr President. The plan that got ZERO votes. Not even your own party wants to adopt your budget. Just because you don't understand basic economics doesn't mean the basic economic approach I'm suggesting isn't a plan."
Republicans tried to elect a door mat, who ended up getting less votes than John McCain (hey, just like when they ran against each other!). Gary Johnson had the strongest libertarian turn-out in history.
I know that a Ron Paul nomination would have made the neocons stay home and not vote, because he's too consistent and doesn't want a new war started every two fucking years. But now it's clear that the establishment needs to make a decision: do they drop the neocons and truly advocate for limited government and free markets, or do they keep losing elections appealing to the warfare/corporate welfare crowd and give up on libertarians?
My suggestion is to adopt the platform of liberty, and stick to it. I know they won't, and that's why Republicans will go the way of the Whigs. And they deserve to.
Some things to be optimistic about:
1) The shitty economy will be entirely Obama's.
2) Hey, at least Romney isn't president, right?
3) The main stream media will finally die, as their credibility plummets lower than Congress's approval ratings, OR
4) The media will actually start doing their jobs.
5) Yeah, I was just kidding about that last one. But you can be optimistic in their inevitable deaths (ratings, not literal).
Anyway, that's my suggestion. Let the neocons vote 3rd party for just one election, and see what happens. If republicans became the "get the government off my body" party, they could change everything.
But they'd rather keep Bill Kristol than Rand Paul. Bill Kristol, by the way, thinks the republicans need to get the young people. The same young people who supported the candidate that Kristol said should leave "his" party.